Our Prime Minister

[myk 4]

another one with questionable sexual preferences is next on the list to enter parliament for labour.Also another one that can't keep her nose out of the public purse,was a complete waste of space in the last labour gvt.

[Philocon 1]

No homophobia from me, Phil. All I see is an older man forcing his attentions on someone younger.

Spin it all you like, Hughes is a creep.

The incredulity and surprise should be caused by your comments not mine. you've till now presented yourself as a reasonable relatively liberal right winger of moderate persuasion. However that comment puts you right among the many who jump to conclusions without waiting to hear the outcome of such police inquiries. At this stage it is an allegation only but we don't really know of what at this stage as police have not released the details of the complaint nor has the the 18 year old man involved.

If Hughes is guilty of a sexual assault, or harrassment or coercion then he deserves no sympathy or support and has to go - although that's academic now with his resignation. If on the other hand the investigation clears him are you going to continue claiming he forced his attentions on someone younger irrespective of the police findings? or is justice and natural justice only to apply to conservatives like Richard Worth?

Your argument is pretty confused. On the one hand you demand consistency from Goff and if that was the case you would be arguing that he acted before the investigation was completed and sack Hughes as Key did to Worth while that investigation was still under way. However Goff accepts that he was wrong when he suggested that Worth should go immediately then and you are demanding that he act wrongly again not learn from past mistakes. Odd arguments but a sure way of ensuring Goff can't win whatever direction you come from.

I have seen no evidence that you are homophobic and haven't suggested you yourself are but you are jumping to conclusions without the outcome of the investigation being known.

Any older person embarking on a relationship or sexual encounter with someone in their late teens or early 20s is probably unwise and should take care especially in public office and in that Hughes is likely guilty of being unwise and exercising poor judgement. But until the allegations are investigated by police and the outcome known and any subsequent action follows they are just allegations and nothing more.

Goff, Key, Bridges, King all appear to have acted properly through this. It would appear to be some political functionaries that may not have. Goff did not accuse the Nats of anything but passed on what he had been told by press gallery journos as to the source of the leak.

Whether Key knew about the leak or not we may never know for sure but he deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt and taken at his word on it unless evidence to the contrary is produced. However you are not prepared to give the same to Goff (or Hughes for that matter before the investigation is complete).

I said earlier that things looked pretty bleak for Hughes even if the police investigation exonerated him and his resignation today bears that out just as it did with Worth. Even if there is nothing illegal or improper, MPs seldom recover from such allegations and leaders usually let them go early to ensure the party focuses on the tasks in hand irrespective of guilt etc. Keys did the same with Worth.

The reality is that NZ is still a puritannical social backwoods at times and the illberal lynch mob is always there just busting to get loose and bypass the accepted processes of the law if given half a chance.

maybe we should be moving on now Hughes has gone or is going and turn our attention to serious questions relating to justice and judicial process such as the provisions in the latest judicature ammendment bill that seeks to remove the right of an accused to silence, remove the election of jury trial in a large number of cases, serious changes to the laws on disclosure involving the defence and a host of other things long accepted in progressive western democracies. The primary aim of the Bill seems to be while not stated as such to make it harder for a defendant to prove their innocence and easier for the Crown to get a conviction and not have to work that hard to prove guilt. Things like that and other issues (such as foreshoe, social spending cuts, economic policy, etc) should no longer continue to be distracted and clouded by this incident

[Philocon 1]

another one with questionable sexual preferences is next on the list to enter parliament for labour.Also another one that can't keep her nose out of the public purse,was a complete waste of space in the last labour gvt.

what is a "questionable sexual preference."

Judith Tizard preference has never been in question, it was known long before she first went into Parliament.

The ones with so called "questionable sexual preferences." are those who have chosen to pretend they are not gay or lesbian but are or vice versa pretend they are not heterosexual (admittedly given the attitude out there the latter is less likely). However if they don't "come out we will never know anyway.

Since when has sexual preference been an impediment to political ability and how on earth is it supposed to affect one's ability to do a job? Does one' taste in music, clothes and films also have such a bearing too?

Warn me now so I can question candidates this election on what songs they like and what films they watch and what restaurants and pubs they dine and drink as that may well influence my vote.

Or do I detect something really "questionable" like prejudice and homophobia?

[Properispomenon 1]

The incredulity and surprise should be caused by your comments not mine. you've till now presented yourself as a reasonable relatively liberal right winger of moderate persuasion.

No, Phil, don't go patronising me by attempting to label me. Whether or not I am 'a reasonable relatively liberal right winger of moderate persuasion' is not the issue here.

And nor am I being inconsistent, as you seem to be saying.

I have consistently pointed out Mr Goff's hypocrisy.

Let me do it again.

Until the Hughes affair surfaced, Mr Goff was silent on the Worth affair.

It was only after the Hughes affair surfaced that Mr Goff voiced an opinion that his hounding for resignation, prosecution, whatever on that occasion was wrong.

In other words, 'I made all sorts of wild accusations about Mr Worth but pretty please don't you do anything similar here. The police investigation is paramount.'

Exactly how that makes me inconsistent, I can't fathom...

You say that 'Goff, Key, Bridges, King all appear to have acted properly through this.'

Well, it's a free country and you are perfectly at liberty to say that.

I would suggest, however, that the first and last people in your quartet have acted anything but properly.

If they had had their way, this matter would still be a secret.

And why bring Bridges into this? He was in the drinking party, he acknowledges, but he had gone home before anything that was the subject of the complaint happened.

Now, Mr Hughes is entitled to the presumption of innocence, I will concede.

But Goff and King should, at the very least, have declared on Day One that Hughes had been suspended from his roles within the Party pending police investigations into a complaint against him.

They could then have adopted the moral high ground of both seeming to act to protect the Party's interests and protecting Hughes himself.

Doing nothing - as they did - simply caused all the ess aitch eye tee that ensued.

Do you at the very least concede that?

[Philocon 1]

No, Phil, don't go patronising me by attempting to label me. Whether or not I am 'a reasonable relatively liberal right winger of moderate persuasion' is not the issue here.

And nor am I being inconsistent, as you seem to be saying.

I have consistently pointed out Mr Goff's hypocrisy.

Let me do it again.

Until the Hughes affair surfaced, Mr Goff was silent on the Worth affair.

It was only after the Hughes affair surfaced that Mr Goff voiced an opinion that his hounding for resignation, prosecution, whatever on that occasion was wrong.

In other words, 'I made all sorts of wild accusations about Mr Worth but pretty please don't you do anything similar here. The police investigation is paramount.'

Exactly how that makes me inconsistent, I can't fathom...

You say that 'Goff, Key, Bridges, King all appear to have acted properly through this.'

Well, it's a free country and you are perfectly at liberty to say that.

I would suggest, however, that the first and last people in your quartet have acted anything but properly.

If they had had their way, this matter would still be a secret.

And why bring Bridges into this? He was in the drinking party, he acknowledges, but he had gone home before anything that was the subject of the complaint happened.

Now, Mr Hughes is entitled to the presumption of innocence, I will concede.

But Goff and King should, at the very least, have declared on Day One that Hughes had been suspended from his roles within the Party pending police investigations into a complaint against him.

They could then have adopted the moral high ground of both seeming to act to protect the Party's interests and protecting Hughes himself.

Doing nothing - as they did - simply caused all the ess aitch eye tee that ensued.

Do you at the very least concede that?

Continuing this argument is probably a waste of time as your definition of hypocrisy in this is subjective and coloured by the political background of the major players. despite what you claim Key did not act quickly in relation to Worth either and it was not he nor Worth who broke the information publicly either.

You are applying different criteria to the two leaders based on the one you favour. Expecting the mater to remain out of the public eye until the police investigation was complete may have been naieve but it is the way it happens when any one of us is the subject of a complaint and police investigation. It only normally becomes public when the investigation is complete and charges are laid or not laid. With public figures it is seldom the case.

Once things have become public whether the investigation is complete or not and charges are laid or not, it makes sense to put the person on leave or stand them down as the ongoing speculation and distraction can affect their performance of the their role - that happened as it did with Worth also.

Apart from Goff making a premature demand which he has since accepted he shouldn't have but which wasn't the reason for Worth's resignation in the end, both cases and the way the leaders dealt with them have been similar despite the spin you try to put on it.

Your argument over Goff's review of his action at the time of Worth's sacking I have already answered. The matter was closed and reviving it just to announce you have a different view of your actions then would have simply invited the response he was trying to revive or drag it out again. Your argument is designed to create a no win situation for purely political partisan reasons. You had no intention of accepting what he said no matter when he said it.

Unfortunately all these events really do is distract us from the real issues of the day and the only real winner in the end is probably going to be Nathan Guy who is known to have stated privately he wasn't keen on Hughes as an opponent in the election as he was a very popular local member when he was there and despite the swing on election night, a provincial semi rural seat was only wrested from Labour by a few hundred votes and Hughes retained a large degree of local personal support. Mr Guy will now get a different candidate not that that guarantees him re-election but probably improves his odds just a little.

[Properispomenon 1]

Continuing this argument is probably a waste of time as your definition of hypocrisy in this is subjective and coloured

I will take that as a concession that I am correct.

Just as the next set of polls will show you what the public of New Zealand think of Mr Goff's hypocrisy.

I notice you didn't answer either of my questions:

1. Why bring Bridges into this? He may be a drinking pal of Hughes but he sure as hell wasn't in Annette King's house when what is being complained about happened.

2. Doing nothing - as they did - simply caused all the ess aitch eye tee that ensued. Do you at the very least concede that?

You are getting as good at avoiding giving direct answers as is your leader in interview situations...

Your spin in attempting to paint John Key's stewardship as somehow similar to Mr Goff's is also, how shall I put it. novel...

Again, I will wait for the next polls to see how the public rate the pair...

8 months till Election Day...

Which probably means 8 months and less than a day till Mr Key gets another Opposition leader to face. Unless further revelations (and there are rumours in abundance) re the cover-up of the Hughes story cause Phil to be toppled by his own party rather than the voters.

I love, too, your implied comment (in your quote above) that everything you (and by inference Mr Goff) says is politically neutral. Whereas anything I say is 'subjective' and/or 'coloured'...

[myk 4]

what is a "questionable sexual preference."

Judith Tizard preference has never been in question, it was known long before she first went into Parliament.

The ones with so called "questionable sexual preferences." are those who have chosen to pretend they are not gay or lesbian but are or vice versa pretend they are not heterosexual (admittedly given the attitude out there the latter is less likely). However if they don't "come out we will never know anyway.

Since when has sexual preference been an impediment to political ability and how on earth is it supposed to affect one's ability to do a job? Does one' taste in music, clothes and films also have such a bearing too?

Warn me now so I can question candidates this election on what songs they like and what films they watch and what restaurants and pubs they dine and drink as that may well influence my vote.

Or do I detect something really "questionable" like prejudice and homophobia?

And now to make my blood boil more,the president of the labour party comes out with his prefered replacement of Hughes being Louise Wall.Another bloody dyke,are there any straight ones in the labour party?Obviously I don't have time for these people,no wonder they flock mainly to the labour party,used to pushing sh-t up hill,exactly what Labour will be doing over the next 3 years.

[Dennis 0]

So is Louise Wall a lesbian, a Maori and a female?

That's an awful lot of grievances in one person!

But seriously I am sure she is a well balanced individual, with a solid working history (outside of academia or "grievance jobs") and sound, common sense, un P.C ideas.

Just the sort of person to represent the normal Labour working class, blue collar voter.

Yeah right......

[Properispomenon 1]

And now to make my blood boil more,the president of the labour party comes out with his prefered replacement of Hughes being Louise Wall.Another bloody dyke,are there any straight ones in the labour party?Obviously I don't have time for these people,no wonder they flock mainly to the labour party,used to pushing sh-t up hill,exactly what Labour will be doing over the next 3 years.

Well, myk, if revelations in recent days are anything to go by I would hope they begin by rethinking their 'recruitment' strategy vis a vis impressionable young uni students, ha...

Although that's me being 'subjective' and/or 'coloured' again, I can hear Philocon whining!

It's actually going to be quite interesting how Labour re-emerge.

One of the most interesting things I saw this week was a comment from Andrew Little that he had been told nothing about the Hughes episode by Goff.

Even though Goff told the media that 'his leadership team' had known for two weeks.

It does beg the rather obvious question. Is Andrew Little, the main Unionist in the party, not in Goff

[myk 4]

Well, myk, if revelations in recent days are anything to go by I would hope they begin by rethinking their 'recruitment' strategy vis a vis impressionable young uni students, ha...

Although that's me being 'subjective' and/or 'coloured' again, I can hear Philocon whining!

It's actually going to be quite interesting how Labour re-emerge.

One of the most interesting things I saw this week was a comment from Andrew Little that he had been told nothing about the Hughes episode by Goff.

Even though Goff told the media that 'his leadership team' had known for two weeks.

It does beg the rather obvious question. Is Andrew Little, the main Unionist in the party, not in Goff

[Properispomenon 1]

Talk of John Key allowing gvt money to fund a gay mardi gras in Akld next year,similar to Sydneys.

Well, inclusionist me would applaud such thinking by John Key, myk...

All sorts make up our society ... and the gay community, so I keep hearing, is about 10% of society.

And, being hard-nosed about it, the gay community seems to have far more discretionary income to bandy about than your average boring straight.

I doubt the proprietors of too many Auckland entertainment venues would be anti the idea of of an Auckland Mardi Gras...

Any thoughts, Sheriff?

[Philocon 1]

Well, inclusionist me would applaud such thinking by John Key, myk...

All sorts make up our society ... and the gay community, so I keep hearing, is about 10% of society.

And, being hard-nosed about it, the gay community seems to have far more discretionary income to bandy about than your average boring straight.

I doubt the proprietors of too many Auckland entertainment venues would be anti the idea of of an Auckland Mardi Gras...

Any thoughts, Sheriff?

There are some things we can agree on.

[Philocon 1]

I will take that as a concession that I am correct.

Just as the next set of polls will show you what the public of New Zealand think of Mr Goff's hypocrisy.

I notice you didn't answer either of my questions:

1. Why bring Bridges into this? He may be a drinking pal of Hughes but he sure as hell wasn't in Annette King's house when what is being complained about happened.

2. Doing nothing - as they did - simply caused all the ess aitch eye tee that ensued. Do you at the very least concede that?

You are getting as good at avoiding giving direct answers as is your leader in interview situations...

Your spin in attempting to paint John Key's stewardship as somehow similar to Mr Goff's is also, how shall I put it. novel...

Again, I will wait for the next polls to see how the public rate the pair...

8 months till Election Day...

Which probably means 8 months and less than a day till Mr Key gets another Opposition leader to face. Unless further revelations (and there are rumours in abundance) re the cover-up of the Hughes story cause Phil to be toppled by his own party rather than the voters.

I love, too, your implied comment (in your quote above) that everything you (and by inference Mr Goff) says is politically neutral. Whereas anything I say is 'subjective' and/or 'coloured'...

No not a concession at all just stating the obvious that it is apparent you have a definition of hypocrisy that is more coloured by partisan politics as much as anything else and unlikely to change.

Your view of Key's handling of the Worth affair chooses to ignore the fact that Key held on to Worth until it was untenable to do so any longer and was equally reluctant to face up until the issue became clear. Allegations like this against politicians nearly always get heard against a background of premature judgements fueled by partisan politics and accused politicians are probably a group that natural justice is almost automatically denied because of this whether Hughes, Worth, Moyle O'Brien or whoever.

I put no spin re Goff's and Key's leadership except that there are many more similarities in their handling of the respective cases than you care to admit.

I didn't bring Bridges into it he was quoted and made comments to the press on it to the effect of the events leading up to the alleged incident at times when he was indicating that such earlier events may have a bearing on what happened later.

The police inquiry may throw some light on the allegations but til then they remain allegations.

Goff doing nothing is your assumption because he did not immediately release the info publicly. We do not know what happened behind the scenes or what advice was given or taken including that of the police and other parties.

King behaving wrongly is a strange accusation as she is not the party leader and so has no authority to pre-empt Goff anyway. She is Hughes' landlady but that does not give her any authority to dictate to him how he conducts his private life either.

I'm not evading answers just not giving you the answers you want.

Perhaps what all these incidents show is that MPs cannot expect the same entitlement to natural justice and such investigations to be carried out properly before anything else happens. That is obvious now from most such incidents going back way before the Worth and Hughes affairs.

Also your argument seems to be that if I or someone on the left puts up an argument it is spin but if you or your friends do it is reasoned and sound argument.

You are starting to sound a bit like your more right wing colleague Grahame Noblet. Even when we are on the same wavelength on the greyhound forum he tends to ascribe covert ideological motives to some of my views there and I think spin is the favourite word in his vocabulary because it's as easy to write as it is to pronounce. Grahame even has 'spin' bookmarked in his dictionary just in case.

[Properispomenon 1]

Also your argument seems to be that if I or someone on the left puts up an argument it is spin but if you or your friends do it is reasoned and sound argument.

Erm, no, Philocon.

You were the one accusing me of having 'subjective' or 'coloured' opinions.

I doubt - but stand to be corrected - if I have ever used those terms about anything you have said.

But go back to Annette King.

The cops picked up this 18 year old, nude and distressed at some wee small hour in the morning.

You are trying to have me believe that King did not know that morning that Hughes was in a bit of bother?

But Goff says he first knew of this all close to a week later!

But surely King, not being a fool, would have tipped off Goff that very day?

If she didn't, she effectively began the cover-up that Goff then continued.

Now, let me look - just from this last post you have made - at the various negative things you cast on my perfectly-vaild observation (that this is all the fault of Phil Goff - and his inaction) and my equally-valid observation that Darren Hughes, whether charged or not in this matter, is a Grade A grub:

It is apparent you have a definition of hypocrisy that is more coloured by partisan politics as much as anything else and unlikely to change.

Premature judgement

Partisan politics

Strange accusation

Keep 'em coming!

A sure sign that someone is rattled is when they resort to such meaningless words!

And an even surer sign that I am more correct (notice that 'more': I am not dogmatic. Hell, I even voted Labour twice - can you claim to have ever voted National?) is when your very own party president is quoted in the paper as being furious that Goff and his coterie didn't even bother to clue him in re the cover-up!

Oh to be a fly on the wall at the next Labour caucus!

[chelseacol 2,488]

No not a concession at all just stating the obvious that it is apparent you have a definition of hypocrisy that is more coloured by partisan politics as much as anything else and unlikely to change.

Your view of Key's handling of the Worth affair chooses to ignore the fact that Key held on to Worth until it was untenable to do so any longer and was equally reluctant to face up until the issue became clear.

Hi Phil

on the issue of hypocrisy I think you are missing the point Prop is making.

It is not that Key didn't do exactly what Goff ended up doing.

Rather it is that Goff publicly called for blood on the Worth issue and said Key was covering up, and then a year later he takes exactly the same action as Key did.

After his statements on the Worth issue - that makes him a hypocrite.

It also makes him look like a goose - but that is a different issue.

[Properispomenon 1]

on the issue of hypocrisy I think you are missing the point Prop is making.

Phil is an intelligent chap, cc. I think it is more likely he is choosing to miss my point...

What you got against geese? Geese are useful...

[chelseacol 2,488]

Phil is an intelligent chap, cc. I think it is more likely he is choosing to miss my point...

What you got against geese? Geese are useful...

Yeah agreed - Phil's posts are well written, which only makes his willful blindness on this point harder to fathom.

As I said earlier in the thread it is a great illustration of personal bias colouring ones view of the facts.

Apologies on the goose comment - I prefer Turkey personally and should probably have used that bird for my comments

[Properispomenon 1]

When the Hughes story broke, it were - according to Phil Goff - the National Party that leaked the news...

Today, as news circulates that there might be a challenge early next week to the Goff 'leadership', guess whose fault it is again?

Yup:

Goff is blaming National for rumours of the plot to oust him from the Labour leadership.

Journalists and political pundits are doing the maths on how much support Goff has, in the face of concerns about the way he's handled the Hughes affair.

But Goff said it's spin from National Party sources.

Gold!

He seems to know heaps about the internal works of the National Party, but precious little about what's going on in his own...

Surely even Phil can see it's in National's best interest to let him remain Leader of the Opposition for years?

[Philocon 1]

Yeah agreed - Phil's posts are well written, which only makes his willful blindness on this point harder to fathom.

As I said earlier in the thread it is a great illustration of personal bias colouring ones view of the facts.

Apologies on the goose comment - I prefer Turkey personally and should probably have used that bird for my comments

These forums are full of pots and kettles. Somehow my bias makes me wilfully blind but others who agree with you and exhibit a contrary bias are not?

The facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute and is coloured by bias on the side of conservative posters as much as the other is whether to believe one leader and not another, or both, let police inquiries run their course before jumping to conclusions and whether one leader or both have behaved appropriately or inappropriately. All those things are matters of judgement where bias becomes one of several factors involved.

[Philocon 1]

When the Hughes story broke, it were - according to Phil Goff - the National Party that leaked the news...

Today, as news circulates that there might be a challenge early next week to the Goff 'leadership', guess whose fault it is again?

Yup:

Goff is blaming National for rumours of the plot to oust him from the Labour leadership.

Journalists and political pundits are doing the maths on how much support Goff has, in the face of concerns about the way he's handled the Hughes affair.

But Goff said it's spin from National Party sources.

Gold!

He seems to know heaps about the internal works of the National Party, but precious little about what's going on in his own...

Surely even Phil can see it's in National's best interest to let him remain Leader of the Opposition for years?

I think most of the spin in that post is coming from you. Goff cited sources in the press gallery for his suggestion that the beehive leaked the info, he didn't just come up with it himself. no journo has contradicted him on that.

talk of a threat to Goff's leadership is just that, speculation. No party figures spoken to have lent any substance to that speculation. He didn't blame the Nats for the speculation, he mainly blamed the media for focusing on this and not paying more attention to issues like the economy etc. he did say that some of the speculation was coming from National party sources. Are you really suggesting no one in the Nats would speculate on that? That's highly unlikely.

It is just pure speculation at present and no evidence has emerged to substantiate as yet. In fact the more speculation there is the less likely it is to happen. most successful leadership changes occur with minimum warning and speculation. The more warning and speculation the less likely it is to happen.

[Properispomenon 1]

I think most of the spin in that post is coming from you. Goff cited sources in the press gallery for his suggestion that the beehive leaked the info.

No, Phil.

And no, again.

You will find my 'spin' (your term) is 100% factual.

Go through my statements:

When the Hughes story broke, it were - according to Phil Goff - the National Party (he called it 'The Beehive' and i will comment on that shortly) that leaked the news...

Fact.

Today, as news circulates that there might be a challenge early next week to the Goff 'leadership', guess whose fault it is again? Yup: Goff is blaming National for rumours of the plot to oust him from the Labour leadership.

Fact.

Journalists and political pundits are doing the maths on how much support Goff has, in the face of concerns about the way he's handled the Hughes affair. But Goff said it's spin from National Party sources.

Fact.

He seems to know heaps about the internal works of the National Party, but precious little about what's going on in his own...

Fact.

Surely even Phil can see it's in National's best interest to let him remain Leader of the Opposition for years?

Fact.

Some 'spin', eh? Five factual statements is now 'spin' in Leftyland?

And, re Mr Goff, I think you will find he consistently said 'The Beehive' was behind all the leaks.

In the real world (i.e. non rose-tinted), 'The Beehive' means 'The Government.'

Put it this way: if One News reported that 'The Queen of England had lunch in The Beehive today', no-one in their right mind (good term, that, Prop) would think 'Her Madge has been having sammies with the press corps', right?

So when Phil, ingenuously, says 'The Beehive leaked...', 99.99% of sane, rational thinkers would say 'He's blaming The Government.'

Phil could easily have said 'The leak came from media working in The Beehive' - and everything would be clear.

That he was deliberately vague - and therefore easily misunderstood - is telling, don't you think?

Feel free to comment, but spare me the tiresome 'spin' jibes.

I will quote your esteemed leader's own words (doubtless drafted by the Labour Party publicity machine: hence the need to look at each word carefully. Eg 'The Beehive', ha) back at you each time...

[chelseacol 2,488]

These forums are full of pots and kettles. Somehow my bias makes me wilfully blind but others who agree with you and exhibit a contrary bias are not?

The facts are not in dispute. What is in dispute and is coloured by bias on the side of conservative posters as much as the other is whether to believe one leader and not another, or both, let police inquiries run their course before jumping to conclusions and whether one leader or both have behaved appropriately or inappropriately. All those things are matters of judgement where bias becomes one of several factors involved.

I have to say wilfully blind because you don't seem to be reading what I have said before responding.

In my message at 3.48pm on the 26th I was making the point Goff criticised Key for how he handled the Worth saga last year, but Goff has ended up taking exactly the same stance as Key did when he became aware of the Hughes allegations.

That makes Goff a hypocrite.

I fail to see how my political views can be colouring that conclusion.

Please note I am not saying Goff was right or wrong in taking the stance he did.

(And to be clear if I was to conclude he was wrong in his handling of it, then I would also agree Key was equally wrong last year).

This was all about Goff being a hypocrite - and he was. Gee even he acknowledged publicly last week that he got it wrong when he had a crack at Key last year. Not sure why you can't accept the same??

[Philocon 1]

I have to say wilfully blind because you don't seem to be reading what I have said before responding.

In my message at 3.48pm on the 26th I was making the point Goff criticised Key for how he handled the Worth saga last year, but Goff has ended up taking exactly the same stance as Key did when he became aware of the Hughes allegations.

That makes Goff a hypocrite.

I fail to see how my political views can be colouring that conclusion.

Please note I am not saying Goff was right or wrong in taking the stance he did.

(And to be clear if I was to conclude he was wrong in his handling of it, then I would also agree Key was equally wrong last year).

This was all about Goff being a hypocrite - and he was. Gee even he acknowledged publicly last week that he got it wrong when he had a crack at Key last year. Not sure why you can't accept the same??

Don't let logic get in the way of your argument will you?

Hypocrisy is not the same thing as inconsistency. Goff's actions were not consistent with what he said at the time of worth and he has since said he accepted he shouldn't have said so and changed his view on that. So if you expect him to behave as he demanded Key did then you are asking that he behave hypocritically having stated he now believes that course of action was wrong.

Most MPs at some stage can be accused of being inconsistent including Goff and Key, even you and me, but that is not hypocrisy.

The generally accepted meaning of hypocrisy in most dictionaries is broadly defined as professing standards, beliefs, etc, that run contrary to one's real character or actual behaviour, and in particular the pretence of virtue and piety. (It's also a swedish rock band but I don't think Goff's a member of that group). Alternatively you are accusing Goff of being a deliberate and blatant liar because you won't take what he says at face value or on trust. However you expect us all to do that for Key's utterances. Either you naively believe that Key is purer than the driven snow and Goff is the opposite, which displays an element of bias on your part as neither is true, or perhaps the critics of Goff's actions are themselves indulging in the very hypocrisy they accuse him of.

Consistency and hypocrisy are two very different words with totally different meanings. His actions are inconsistent with what he stated last time but he has pointed out why. That is not hypocritical unless you start to change the meaning of words.

[nicole1 0]

No, Phil.

And no, again.

You will find my 'spin' (your term) is 100% factual.

Go through my statements:

When the Hughes story broke, it were - according to Phil Goff - the National Party (he called it 'The Beehive' and i will comment on that shortly) that leaked the news...

Fact.

Today, as news circulates that there might be a challenge early next week to the Goff 'leadership', guess whose fault it is again? Yup: Goff is blaming National for rumours of the plot to oust him from the Labour leadership.

Fact.

Journalists and political pundits are doing the maths on how much support Goff has, in the face of concerns about the way he's handled the Hughes affair. But Goff said it's spin from National Party sources.

Fact.

He seems to know heaps about the internal works of the National Party, but precious little about what's going on in his own...

Fact.

Surely even Phil can see it's in National's best interest to let him remain Leader of the Opposition for years?

Fact.

Some 'spin', eh? Five factual statements is now 'spin' in Leftyland?

And, re Mr Goff, I think you will find he consistently said 'The Beehive' was behind all the leaks.

In the real world (i.e. non rose-tinted), 'The Beehive' means 'The Government.'

Put it this way: if One News reported that 'The Queen of England had lunch in The Beehive today', no-one in their right mind (good term, that, Prop) would think 'Her Madge has been having sammies with the press corps', right?

So when Phil, ingenuously, says 'The Beehive leaked...', 99.99% of sane, rational thinkers would say 'He's blaming The Government.'

Phil could easily have said 'The leak came from media working in The Beehive' - and everything would be clear.

That he was deliberately vague - and therefore easily misunderstood - is telling, don't you think?

Feel free to comment, but spare me the tiresome 'spin' jibes.

I will quote your esteemed leader's own words (doubtless drafted by the Labour Party publicity machine: hence the need to look at each word carefully. Eg 'The Beehive', ha) back at you each time...

Agreed, after attending dinner with the PM himself on Friday night, I am told that if he had a vote for who was to be Labour's leader he would choose Goff =] we all know Labour will not win in that man's hands

[Properispomenon 1]

Goff's actions were not consistent with what he said at the time of worth and he has since said he accepted he shouldn't have said so and changed his view on that.

Phil, your logic is flawed.

Again...

Let me again run you past the timeline:

June 2009. Richard Worth resigns. Phil Goff is silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2009. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

April 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

May 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

June 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

July 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

August 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

September 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

October 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

November 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

December 2010. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

January 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

February 2011. Phil Goff is still silent as to whether he thinks he made a mistake.

March 2011. Darren Hughes stands accused of thinking with his penis. Phil Goff admits he made a mistake and now thinks it is only fair that the presumption of innocence should apply until someone is proven guilty.

How curious, don't you think, that Goff has his 'I was wrong' revelation in the self same month that he suddenly wants us to all to go easy on his pal, Darren Hughes.

I would have given Goff some credit if he has made his 'I was strong' statement anything in the month or two after Worth resigned ... but he didn't, did he?

His 'I was wrong' statement came only after the Hughes story broke ... and after he had two weeks, possibly three, to think of some possible way for Hughes to not be hounded as Worth was by him...

That, again, Phil, is the actions of a hypcrite...

To suddenly spring his revelation on us now just beggars belief as to how dopey he thinks the public is...